Transcription
DOCUMENTED 024 376RESUMEJC 680 436By-Brooks, Walter L.Shasta College.A Study of Penalty Grading and Probation Practices atPub Date Jun 68Note- 22p.EDRS Price MF- 0.25 HC- 1.20Average, *Junior CollegesDescriptors- *Academic Probation, *Disqualification, *Grade PointIdentifiers- *CaliforniaminimumprobationsetIn July 1967, the California State Board of Educationhaving less than a 2.0 GPAthat(1)studentscolleges,providingstandards for junioracademic probation, (2) all such(with 12 or more units attempted) will be put onfailing to maintain a 1.75 GPAstudents will receive special counseling, and (3) thosethe effects of thesefor three consecutive terms will be dismissed. Anticipatingto review all its penalty gradingstandards on its own system, Shasta College decidedfill-time freshmen foroffirstandTheprobationstatisticsand probation practices.for the 1967-68 year werethe 1966-67 year and the proiected and actual figures increase in probations couldexamined. Comparison of the figures showed that a 107counseling service. It becamebe expected, recjuiring a corresponding increase ininfluences on the student'sapparent that, after due consideration of non-academic recommendations--remedialpossible success, the counselor had three possiblethat the counselingcourses, a limited unit load, or change of major. It was concludedthe initial choice of major,could be greatly improved by giving more attention toability. It was also felt that anmaking sure it comes close to the student's apparentthe student's CPA, allowing himunlimited withdrawal policy would do much to protectthe term without penalty. Instructorsto drop a specific course at any time duringconsidering it a protection for their ownlenientwithdrawalpolicy,agreed with thegrading standards. (HH)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEPERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATIONPOSITION OR POLICY.A STUDY OF PENALTY GRADING AND PROBATION PRACTICESAT SHASTA COLLEGEWalter L. BrooksCounselor, Shasta CollegeUNIVERSITY OF CALIF.LOS ANGELESJune, 1968OCT 1 4 1968CLEARINGHOUSEFORJUNIOR COLLEGEINFrt- 1 A TinN
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION1PLAN OF STUDY1DESCRIPTION OF PENALTY GRADING ANDPROBATION PRACTICES AN SHASTA COLLEGE2ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT VARIABLES IN PLANNINGCHANGES IN PENALTY GRADING AND PROBATIONPRACTICES7EXPERIMENTAL CHANGES IN GRADING ANDPROBATION PRACTICESCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1418
LIST OF TABLESTABLE IActual and Projected Probation Statisticsfor Full-time Freshmen5TABLE II8Persistence and College MajorTABLE IIIComparison of Grades for Fall 1966.andFall 1967.16TABLE IVProjected and Actual Fall ProbationStatistics for Full-time Freshmen17TABLE VComparable Probation Data for the Complete1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years18
INTRODUCTIONCalifornia junior colleges were notified by the State Board of Educationthat on July 1, 1967, a minimum probation standard would become manditory forall junior colleges.The essential provisions of this new standard were:(1)Any junior college student failing to achieve a 2.00 grade point average (on afour-point scale) while attempting 12 or more units would be placed on academicprobation.(2)All students placed on academic probation wuld receive specialacademic counseling.(3)Any student who failed to maintain a 1.75 grade pointaverage would be dismissed from the college after his third consecutive semesterof attendance.The standards in effect at Shasta College differed from the new state-widestandard in one important respect; Shasta College had long placed students onprobation when their grade point averages fell below a 1.75.Since a great manystudents at the college carried grade point averages betWeen 1.75 and 2.00, itwas anticipated that the new standard would significantly increase the numberof students going on probation and receiving special academic counseling.Initi-ally, school officials intended only to find what the increase in counselor loadwould be under the new standard, but after some consideration, it was decided thata complete review of all penalty grading and probation practices would be appropriate before the new standard took affect.This study is a record of the cooper-ative efforts of the college administration, the Scholastic Standards Committee,and the counseling office to understand and make corrective changes in the penaltygrading and probation practices of the college.PLAN OF THE STUDYAs in most institutional research, it was not possible in this study to achievethe level of systematic observation and control which typifies the behavioral research
laboratory.desirable and wereThese qualities were, however, recognized asemployed as conditions would permit.relating toIn the first phase of the study, the institutional practicesidentified, statisticsgrading and probation were reviewed, a study group wasand the options open to counrelating to grading and probation were gathered,selors in dealing with probationary students were categorized.In the secondpenalty grading and probation pracphase of the study, changes were planned intices through an analysis of relevant variables.This included an investigationand specific majors, the relativeof the relationship between student successprobationary students, andeffectiveness of counselor options in dealing withsolution to the problems of penalty grading.a consideration of the N" grade as achanges in penalty grading andIn the third phase of the study, experimentalprobation practices were introduced.Results of the study were gathered andconclusions drawn.I.Shasta CollegeDescription of Penalty Grading and Probation Practices atGrading standards of the college:Shasta College has long maintained the four-point grading scale common to California junior colleges.In such a scale, 43 points for '8" work, 2 pointspoints are allowed for each unit of "A" work,for "F" work.for "C" work, 1 point for "D" work, and 0 pointsIn addition tofour other grades were used:this standard scale, until the 1967-68 school year,through the finalThe student received an "E" grade if he attended the coursefor the course.examination but failed to complete a required assignmentIf theinstruction of the succeedingassignment was not completed before the sixth week ofregistrar to 'T".semester, this "E" grade was changed by theawThe student receivedthrough the counseling officegrade if he officially withdrew from the class
3-,before the sixth week of instruction.*4\If the student failed to officially with-of instruction, he received either adraw from the class before the sixth week"WP" grade or a "WF" grade.The "WF" grade carried the same grade point penaltyas the "F" gradasubject to wide individual interpretaThe assignment of "WF" "WF" grades wastion by the instructional staff.While some instructors would automatically assignwho failed to come to class, the 1WF" grade was justa "WP" grade to the studentThe interpretation of penalty gradesas automatically assigned in as many cases.of many instructors of simply carryingwas further complicated by the practiceclass on the roll book until the end of the semestera student who failed to attendpenalty grades in cases of irregularand assigning an IT" grade. The assignment ofthe work of the Scholasticwith4rawal was so widespread that the majority ofpetitions for removalStandards Committee of the college consisted of consideringthe irregular withdrawal of theof pmalty grades which had been assigned uponstudent.penalty grades were as oftenIt became apparent to the committee thatof the student's ability toan indicator of immaturity as they were an indicatorperform in class.by the college can never beThe cost of the penalty grading system usedaccurately determined.The time spent by the Scholastic Standards Committee isone way of estimating the cost.The fact that the great majority of studentswithdrawal failing grades have neverwho received a semester grade report ofestimating the cost.returned to the college is another way oftended to look with favor uponSince the Scholastic Standards Committeeestablished that the student leftany grade change request where it could bewhere the student was actuallyschool prior to the sixth week of instruction orclass, emotional confrontationsreceiving a passing grade upon withdrawal from the
-4office, and the committee were allamong students, instructors, the counselingtoo common.It was decided by the Scholastic Standards Committee that a differentapproach to penalty grading would be desirable.Probation statistics for the 1966-67 school year and projected probation statisticsfor the 1967-68 school year:It was deemed important to determine the probabletheextent of increase in the number of students subject to academic probation in1967-68 school year when the new probation standards would go into effect.study group was selected from the student population for this purpose.AThe entirestudent population was not used since it was anticipated that several measures ofextended period ofthe characteristics of the study group would be made over antime.The group identified for the study WAS first- and full-time freshmen, thosetwelve or more units, comstudents with no previous college who were enrolled forpleting the fall semester of 1966.This group was chosen because it could beproduct of theaccurately identified, the students in the group were exclusively aeducational program at Shasta College, and the group could be followed over anextended period of time.'became known, aIn the fall of 1967, immediately after enrollment figuressecond study group was selected.This group was composed of all first- and full-time freshmen completing the fall semester of 1967.for comparison purposes throughout the study.These two groups were usedUpon selection of the second studygroup, an estimate was made of probation statistics for the 1967-68 school yearunder the new probation standard.Table one shows the probation statistics forof 1966 and the profirst- and full-time freshmen beginning college in the fallbeginning collegejected probation statistics for first- and full-time freshmenin the fall of 1967.
-5-Table IActual and Projected Fall ProbationStatistics for Full-time FreshmenFall 1966Projected Fall 1967Total first- and full-timefreshmen completing fall sem737828Students with G.P.A.between .00 and 1.75185 (25%)207 (25%)Students with G.P.A.between .C4 and 2.0077 (10%)83 (10%)I. 1.5-Total expected onprobation in fall 1967290 (35%)Table one shows that an increase from 25% to 35% of beginning freshmenstudents going on academic probation could have been expected in the fall of1967 as a result of the change in the probation standard.A check of the sta-tistics for beginning freshmen against the general school population showed that,after the initial high withdrawal rate for freshmen, they did not differ fromthe general school population.Counselor o tions in dealinwithrobationarstudents:Since a 407 increasein students receiving academic counseling was expected, it became important toreview the options to the counselor in dealing with students ln academic probation.It would be an exhaustive task to catalog all the things that counselors"do" when dealing with a student on academic probation.ably have to be made for each student seen.A new entry would prob-Helping the student plan his programand seeing him successfully through it is, undoubtedly, the heart of the counselingfunction of the junior college counselor.It is possible, however, to catalog the
-6-for dealing with students oninstitutional tools provided to the counseloracademic probation.Approached from this point of view, most colleges findtheir list rather short.academic probation for theAt Shasta College when a student is placed onhis profirst time, a letter is sent to him at his home address indicatingbationary status and advising him to contact his counselor.do so.to see his counselor, but he is urged toHe is not requiredIf the student falls to removehis counselorprobation during the next semester, he is then required to seebefore he is allowed to enroll for classes.It is after the student has beenthat the counselor will exercise oneon academic probation the second semesterof several options in controlling the student's program.has been placed on academicWhen the counselor is faced with a student wtodetermine if some outside inprobation for two semesters, he will first try towork load, is affectingfluence, such as a personal difficulty or an excessivethe student's performance.If such an influence is seen to be adversely affectingcontinue with a full unit loadperformance, the counselor may allow the student toin the same major with the correction of the difficulty.If the student's perform-perform in the coursesance seems to be related to motivation or to his ability tokinds of controlled program will be requiredin which he is enrolled, one of severalof the student.remedial courses toHe may be required to enroll in one or morehe has chosen; he may be requiredestablish an adequate background for the majorwhic-h, he enrolls; or he may be required to chooseto limit the number of units forabilities as a condition of enrollment.a major more in keeping with hisThesecollege for counselor use in dealingthen are the specific options provided by thewith probationary students:major.remedial courses, a limited unit load, and change of
-7-IIAnalysis of Relevant Variables in Planning Changes in Penalty Grading andProbation PracticesThe relationship between student success and specific maim:If change of majoris to be regarded as an tmportant institutional tool for dealing with probationarystudents, the relationship between student success and major certainly ought tobe considered.Success in a major course of study is unquestionably a highlycomplex and individualistic matter.Success for the individual student in a givenmajor is most probably the result of differing patterns of ability, motivation, andopportunity, as well as the ability of the college to present the course work included in the major in such a way that the student can profit from it.Nonetheless,if counselors are to assist the student in choosing a new major when he is doingpoorly, knowing the overall success rate in the new major might prove helpful.Table two shows the relationship between the initial choie of major for thestudents in the fall 1966 study group and the number of students who withdrew inthe fall and spring semesters, the number of students going on probation in thefall and spring semesters, and total number of students persisting three consecutivesemesters.
.8-.TABLE IIPERSISTENCE RATE AND COLLEGE MAJORMajors with a Persistence Rate GreaterThan the Mean Persistence RateMajorsInitiallyEnrolledSecond SemesterWDG.P.A.-2.00First SemesterG.P.A.WD-2.00Enrolled3rd -1-1150%Engineering43374152658%English & 50%3111-266%27111661970%1 athematics92-12444%1 edicine8-212450%1 usic92--1562%Optometry1.---1100%172813847%Physical Science1----1100%Physics2-.-1150%Biological Scienceame EconomicsJournalismLawLaboratory TechnicianLetters & SciencePhysical EducationH.,
-9-Majors with a Persistence Rate GreaterThan the Mean Persistence Rate ---- Cont'dMa'orsInitiallyEnrolledFirst chology16Social Science13Social Welfare12MID52MID1SociologyIEnrolled3rd Semeste42Oil,Second SemesterWDG.P.A.-2.0041.7Political ScienceI13General iness13423646%Agriculture (Vocational)17414850%Auto vy Duty Equipment17441847%Natural Resources18734844%Police Science25651352%Registered Nurse11General BusinessTechnical 17337%6514%12330%28154%
-10-Majors with a Persistence Rate LessThan the Mean Persistence RateMa orsArchitectureInitiallyEnrolledFirst SemesterG.P.A.WD-2.009Second SemesterWDEnrolled3rd Semester-2.0000%4129161932%Business Administration591520Commercial Art11234327%Dentistry7153229%Fine Arts11243436%133%436%2125%1133%Foreign Language1 131Game Management11Industrial Arts41Pharmacy32Philosophy2Pre-Nursing (RN)2122786732%421120%Speech - Drama5Teaching (Elementary)2Teaching (Secondary)1Veterinary6311Accounting (Vocational)11133Business Management2867451226Machine Tool41Real Estate32101CarpentryClerk - TypistSales & llerchandising00%11 100%00%1 1117%4436%81036%240%523%1125%MO133%33072731283
Majors with a Persistence Rate LessThan the Mean Persistence Rate ---- Cont'dMa'orsInitiallyEnrolledTechnical DraftingSubtotalFirst SemesterG.P.A.WD-2.00WDEnrolled3rd 2051567822%39%3919%17256Second SemesterSeparated becau*e the following were one-year programs;Cosmetology173Secretarial497Secretarial Skills21Subtotal87Combined Total8631311The comment which must be made at the outset about table two is that thenumber of students representing each major is inadequate for specific judgementon the relationship between the initial choice of major and student success.Itis quite likely that many of the majors represented by small numbers of studentswould show great fluctuations on all measures of student success if more studentswere included in the sample.When considering the majors below the mean persis-tence rate of 44%, however, one would not expect all measures of student successto be low if only a chance relationship existed with regard to overall persistence.
-12-As it;tutns out, all indicators of student success are low.These majors are notonly below the average in persistence third semester, table two shows they are lowon the probation measures as well.It, therefore, seems likely that ate initialchoice of major is related to later student success, but no precise statement canbe made about the individual major without further data.Mention might be madeof the persistence rate of students who initially specify a "general education"orItundeclared" major.These are generally considered to be high risk majors interms of both withdrawal and persistence.may not necessarily be the case.The data seem to indicate that thisCertain declared majors, such as Business Admin-istration, seem to be far more predictive of future academic difficulty.All business related majors appear low in persistence.trend and is, therefore, important to note.This is an overallIt would appear that the student whodetlares a business related major is less sure of his purpose than a student whofails to declare a major.This large number of students with low persistence anda strong likdlihood of going on probation should certainly be of conc'ern to thebusiness department and the counseling staff of the college.The N" grade as a solution to the penalty grading problem:It has been suggestedthat the counselor has two general alternatives at his disposal beyond assignmentof specific remedial classes in dealing with probationary students.Change ofmajor was identified as one of these alternatives; limiting the class load isanother.Although a reduction to 7k units is the standard set forth in the schoolcatalog for limiting the load of probation students, a search of the records in-dicates that the number of units a student is actually allowed to take variesgreatly.Most counselors feel free to judge the individual case when restrictingthe student load.A question which might be asked in this regard is, if limitingthe class load is a legitimate counseling function after the student is on probation,
-13-why not allow the student this same option before he is in academic trouble?Infirst few weeks of the semother words, why limit unpenalized withdrawal to theester?Scholastic StandardsAn unlimited withdrawal proposal was taken before theCommittee of the college and discussed at length.The discussion eventually--against the proposal.took the form of several specific arguments for andThe arguments for the proposal were, first, that it would place more respon-sibility with the student for succeeding or failing in his classes.It was feltfrom the class up to or duringthat, if the student had the option of withdrawingwould call for a more maturethe final examination, staying or leaving the classAny counselor who has listened to the student in trouble with hisdecision.of collegefinal examinations nurse an authority reaction over the inflexibilitywithdrawal rules can appreciate such an argument.A second argument for the changecollege.Was that it would clarify the penalty grading practices of theThe threewithdrawal grades used by the college have never conveyed very precise meanings.student's record, itSince the "WF" grade has such an adverse affect on thewould seem more reasonable to assign a single neutral grade for withdrawal froma class.A third argument,in favor of the change was that it would encouragecollege experience.the kind of exploration we insist is a part of the juniorJunior colleges have always prided themselves in their salvage function.Anotherintend to make successway of describing the salvage function is to say that weful students out of unsuccessful students.The most formidable obstacle we facein such an undertaking is the student's fear of failure.A student with a badschool experience in high school or another college could certainly profit froma removal of the threat of failure in the grading system.A system whereby thestudent could withdraw from a class at any time without penalty should have suchan effect.
-14-While the arguments for the proposal are in keeping with the junior collegephilosophy, the arguments against it are more practical and certainly worth consideration.It was argued that such a change could result in serious dislocationof teaching staff.If students tended to sign up for classes they had no intentionof finishing in large numbers, such dislocation could take place.class scheduling could become much more difficult.a different aspect of the same affect.Planning forA second argument emphasizedIt was felt that unlimited withdrawalmight encourage student irresponsibility with regard to persistence.Studentswho could succeed in a class might be tempted to take the easy way out and withdraw even though they were capable of "C" work in a class.It was decided that the merits of the arguments for the proposal were worththe risk inherent in the arguments against it, and, since the arguments againstthe proposal involved measurable variables, it was decided to change to an unlimited withdrawal policy on a trial basis.III Experimental Changes in Penalty Grading and Probation PracticesThe study group:The study group which was used for determining the effects ofthe change in grading policy has been previously identified.Since the change tothe grading system allowing students to withdraw until the final examination wasto take place in the fall of 1967, experimental and control groups were readilyidentifiable.The first- and full-time freshmen enrolling in the fall of 1966under the restricted withdrawal policy were used as controls.The first- andfull-time freshmen enrolling in the fall of 1967 with the option of unrestrictedwithdrawal constituted the experimental group.Antici ated effects of chan e:One of the major disadvantages of institutionalresearch is that you are rarely afforded the luxury of dealing with a single
-15-independent variable.This study is no exception.In the fall of 1967 therewere actually three major changes introduced in the grading and probationpractices of the college.sion.The first was the "IAP' grading policy under discus.The other two changes relate to probation and would probably, though notnecessarily, affect the experimental group in the spring rather than the fallsemester.The state-wide probation standard requiring students to be placed onprobation when they fell below a 2.00 average want into effect in the fall of1967.Knowledge of this change may have had some influence on entering fresh-men or the grading practices of the instructional staff.Information fram schoolswhich changed to the 2.00 standard without instituting the "ie policy would helpclarify the effect of the state directive, but such information is not availableat this time.AL second change in the probation practices of the school wouldmore than likely affect only the spring statistics.When describing the pro-bation practices at Shasta College, it was indicated that the student placed onprobation would receive a letter at his home address informing him of his probationary status.While a check of the 1966 study group indicates that thisletter may have an invigorating effect upon the student's grade point average,students below a 1.75 in the fall of 1966 raised their grade point averages farmore than students between a 1.76 and a 2.00.The letter should not affect thebeginning college student since he could not receive the letter until the completion of the fall semester.The fall grade reports of the students in the studygroup should, therefore, be far more indicative of the independent effect of thechange to the N" grading policy than the grade report for the second semesterof the school year.The relative importance of specific changes is a research question; theimportant practical question is what will the combined effects of the changes be?
-16-The specific hypothesis of those favoring such a change was that the increaseof withdrawal grades given would equal the reduction in the penalty ("D" and "F")grades given.The le policy might be considered to be encouraging student ir-responsibility or causing scheduling disruptions if the withdrawal rate fromclasses greatly exceeded the reduction in penalty grades.Results and discussion:The statistics below compare the total grades given inthe fall of 1966 with the total grades given in the fall of 1967.Table IIIFall 1966Fall 1967Total grades given12,21113,782Withdrawal grades givenW & WP 2193W 3444Percentage of withdrawal grades18%25%G.P.A. penalty grades givenDFWFPercentage of G.P.A. penalty grades11%57oPercentage of withdrawal andpenalty grades combined29%30%Mean fall grade point averagefor first- and fu/l-time freshmen1.962.37922317128DF67739The comparative statistics demonstrate that students did not use the option ofwithdrawing from class until the final class meeting irresponsibly.While thenumber of students taking penalty grades has decreased, withdrawals from classesdid not increase disproportionately.There has been no significant decrease inthe percentage of students failing to complete classes with "C" or better grades.The follawing statistics show the percentage of increase which could have beenexpected in probation students in the study group when changing fram a 1.75
-17-and the actual increase.probation standard to a 2.00 probation standardTable IVProjected.and Actual Fall ProbationStatisties for Full-time FreshmenStudents.with G.Pbetween .00 and 1.75Projected Fall 1967Actual Fall 1967207 (25%)103 (12%)83 (10%)74 (10%)Students with G.P.A.between .04F and 2.00Total expected on probationwithout '1114" grade.policy290 (357)177 (22%)Total actually on probation"114" policy,It can be seen from the projected figures above that without thecould havechanging from a 1.75 probation standard to a 2.00 probation standardby one-third.increased the number of students going on probationof students going on probationThere has ntot only been a lower percentagein terms of actualthan the projected percentage, there were fewer students1967 than in fall 1966numbers with a grade point average below a 2.00 in fallwith increased enrollment.Table five shows the overall comparative probation1967-68 schoolstatistics for first- and full-time freshmen in the 1966-67 andyears.'14" grading system can beFrom all indications it would appear that theemployed without undue cost to the withdrawal rate.fall semester continues into the spring semester.The trend established in theA clearer picture of changesin the probation rate is gained from the fol1awing table.
-18-Table VBeginning Freshmen1966-67 School YearBeginning Freshmen1967-68 School Year317 (43%)481 (58%)Below a 2.00 G.P.A. thefall semester only90 (12%)75 (09%)Below a 2.00 G.P.A. thespring semester only87 (12%)72 (09%)119 (16%)54 (06%)Below a 2.00 G.P.A. thefall semester and withdrew53 (077)48 (06%)2.00 G.P.A. or above the fallsemester and withdrew71 (10%)98 (12%)2.00 G.P.A. or above forboth fall and spring semestersBelow a 2.00 C.P.A. bothfall and spring semesterIV Conclusions and RecommendationsAcademic counseling of probationary students could im rove with mcre attention tothe initial choice of major by the student:Although no definite relationship canbe assumed between specific choice of major and student success, the combined measures of student success indicate that such a relationship is likely.Further in-vestigation should more specifically identify these majors; this knowledge willgive the counselor additional information to assist the probationary student inmaking a realistic change of major.The data from this study showing a trendtoward a law student success rate among groups of majors could be useful in dealing with new students in college orientation classes.Grouping students with highrisk majors in the same college orientation class might prove helpful.Departmentsof the college having a large number of high risk majors, such as the BusinessDepartment, might certainly give some thought to the characteristics of the studentsthey are attracting.
-19-The uTi" grading policy is an effective tool for protecting th p. student's gradepoint average:Since the concerns which were held regarding the unlimited with-drawal did not prove valid, the grading system should be retained.Although itis beyond the scope of this pap
academic counseling. (3) Any student who failed to maintain a 1.75 grade point average would be dismissed from the college after his third consecutive semester. of attendance. The standards in effect at Shasta College differed from the new state-wide standard in one important respect; Shasta College had long placed students on
